Legal Opinion

In re Meade Land & Development Co.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided June 16, 1978No. 77-2309PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge:

In its petition for rehearing before this court in banc,1 Massey-Ferguson has, inter alia, reiterated the contention made before the panel that the trial court erred in its allocation of peremptory strikes between the parties. Massey-Ferguson points to this court’s decision in Blount v. Plovidba, 567 F.2d 583 (3d Cir. 1977), in which the panel held (Hunter, J., dissenting) that 28 U.S.C. § 1870, the statute providing for jury challenges, does not permit a trial judge to grant more than three peremptory challenges to each party in a single plaintiff-single…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Carl Blount v. Jugoslavenska Linijska PlovidbaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
  2. Smith v. Pressed Steel Tank Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Carey v. Lykes Bros. SteamshipCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
  4. Moore v. South African Marine Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
  5. Smith v. Pressed Steel Tank CoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re Nation/Ruskin, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. In the Matter of Meade Land and Development Co., Inc., Bankrupt. Appeal of Eastgate Enterprises, Inc., CreditorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
  3. Matter of DooleyUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API